Slashdot Mirror
Google Ads Are a Free Speech Issue
WebHostingGuy writes "A US Federal Court recently ruled that ads displayed by search engines are protected as free speech. In the case at issue, Yahoo!, Google, and Microsoft were sued by an individual demanding under the 14th Amendment that the search engines display his advertisements concerning fraud in North Carolina. The Court flatly stated that the search engines were exercising their First Amendment right of free speech in deciding what ads they want to display."
No, we pretty much have the same rule as you do but since it's rarely enforced, people like Kevin Trudeau can continue to peddle crap which claims to 'cure' dieting even though by claiming such, he is required to submit his products for testing to verify their claims. Since you're not from the U.S., any product which claims to cure an affliction must be tested by the FDA to prove it's claims. If, however, you say that the product helps to relieve the symptoms of X, then it's not subject to medical scrutiny. See this FDA page on how things are supposed to work.
Which he hasn't and never will. The only time the FTC stepped in on his lame ass was when he sold the products themselves. The FTC shut him down based on his infomercials so he adjusted his snakeoil salesmanship to only sell the books which tell you what products to buy. Since his books are protected Free Speech, PROFIT!
See this link and this link for what a con artist this guy is and how he's endangering peoples lives with his lies as well an analysis by a doctor about his claims.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
This area of law is usually described as the "negative right to free speech"; namely, the right not to be forced to speak.
For example, in Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), the Supreme Court overturned New Hampshire's motor vehicle regulation that required motorists to display license plates declaring "Live Free or Die". The court held that a person can not be forced by the government to display an ideological message on his private property. In West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624
(1943), the Supreme Court held that students did not have to recite the pledge of allegiance, since the government could not force a student to declare a belief.
Lastly, a private individual is not subject to the requirements of the 1st Amendment. A private individual is not the government. While the government can't force me to say anything, I might take on contractual obligations to make statements. However, if I fail to make those statements, a court would not force me to make those statements. It would hold me liable for money damages, unless it could find a very compelling reason to make me speak.
Let me pile on with the others who have said, yes you can. There are numerous cases where anti-abortion groups wanted to run ads on television showing dead fetuses and such but were denied by the stations in question. The groups claimed discrimination and other things but the courts consistently have held that television stations and such do not have to run the ads.
Here are cases involving billboard companies refusing to run ads because of their content:
North Georgia
Crawford Texas
Hollywood
Times Square
I know for a fact that Lamar Advertising refused to run ads in my area from anti-Bush people during the last campaign.
Here's a story from last year (2006) when CBS refused to run two ads during the Super Bowl. One was for PETA and the other was anti-Bush. Link
So yes, you can deny someone advertisement on a whim just like a restaurant has the right to refuse someone service for any reason they so choose.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
No, you can't really deny someone advertisement based on whim.
If you don't like the content, yes you can.
Private entities are generally able to discrimate for pretty much any reason, so long as the reason is directly related to the transaction at hand. Theaters can refuse to hire an actor based on skin color. Churches can fire a priest for changing his religion. Gyms can turn away paraplegic clients. Publishers can reject content they simply don't like.
The corellation must be direct, however. Theaters can't fire an actor for changing religion, gyms can't turn away clients based on race, and churchs can't discriminate over paraplegy.